Skip to main content

Full text of "The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the new hierarchy"

See other formats






















JSl'^'Jv' 









ii 












fiJ^i?i ( ^/r.j/^r^:^ ^4^//'^ 









^r'c'^ji 



ifcV>^. 



Ij%p. - > \., 










Mm£2& 



>^ 










^1^' 



^:' 



^^M 



m^ 










^ 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2007 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 



http://www.archive.org/details/cardinalarchbishOObowyrich 



t-^ 



THE CARDINAL 
ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER 



AND 



THE NEW HIERARCHY. 



BY 

GEORGE BOWYER, ESQ., D.C.L. 

BARRISTER AT LAW, 

AUTHOR OF " COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF ENGLAND,' 

AND " COMMENTARIES ON THE MODERN CIVIL LAW," &C. 

READER AT THE MIDDLE TEMPLE. 



33g ^utfjoritg. 



" I do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful and bear true alle- 
giance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria And I do declare that I do not 

believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state, 
or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jxirisdiction, power, 

superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this Realm So 

help me God,"— Stat. 10 Geo. IV. c. 7. s. II. 



THIRD EDITION, WITH ADDITIONS. 



LONDON: 
JAMES RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY. 

1850. 



THE CARDINAL 
ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER 

AND 

THE NEW HIERARCHY. 



The time is come when both peace and justice 
require that a complete and fair explanation be 
rendered to ihe country, touching the true nature of 
the new form given to the Roman Catholic Church 
in England ; and an answer to the arguments and 
invectives which in an uninterrupted torrent have 
for some time past been addressed to the national 
feelings and prejudices — raising apprehensions in 
the mind of impartial and thoughtful men, that the 
justice of public opinion may be overwhelmed and 
suppressed, and a bitter and lamentable division 
created between the Protestant and the Catholic 
subjects of the Crown. 

I never will believe a thing so repugnant to the 
nature of an Englishman, as that any one can in 
this country be condemned without a complete and 
favourable hearing ; though, it is true, that pub- 
licity has been grudgingly and rarely given to the 
arguments and remonstrances on the Catholic — 

A 2 



politically and numerically the weaker side — in the 
columns of the newspapers teeming daily with 
every topic calculated to inflame the public mind 
against us, and to involve us in an irresistible and 
indiscriminating storm of misguided popular indig- 
nation. 

In no wise discouraged by these unfavourable 
appearances, but confiding in the good sense and 
justice of my countrymen, I ask them in the name 
of an unpopular cause, and contrary to their pre- 
possessions and most favourite prejudices, to suspend 
their judgment, and lend a not unwilling ear to the 
following facts and arguments. 

I shall not engage in any point of theological 
controversy, but confine myself to legal and political 
grounds — shewing that no substantial reason exists 
for any complaint on the part of the Crown, or the 
nation, against the late exercise of the spiritual 
authority of the See of Rome, whereby her Ma- 
jesty's loyal and devoted subjects, the English 
Roman Catholics, have received the great benefit of 
a canonical, and regular, and permanent Episcopacy, 
in lieu of a temporary and anomalous form of 
internal administration under prelates, titulars of 
foreign sees in partibus infidelium, and holding the 
office of Vicars Apostolic in England. 

Let us examine the nature and efifect of the 
Apostolic letter, creating a Hierarchy in this country 
with reference to the Law and Constitution of the 
realm, and the rights which her Majesty's Roman 



Catholic subjects possess under, and by virtue of 
that Law and Constitution. 

The relation which they bear according to the 
Law of the land towards the See of Rome, clearly 
appears from the following words of the oath, pre- 
scribed by Stat. 10 Geo. IV. c. 7? commonly known 
as the Catholic Emancipation Act. 

^^ And I do further declare, that it is not an article 
of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and 
abjure the opinion that princes excommunicated or 
deprived hy the Pope, or any other authority of the 
See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their 
subjects, or by any other person whatsoever. And I 
do declare that I do not believe that the Pope of 
Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, 
state, or potentate, hath or ought to have, any tem- 
poral or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority or pre- 
eminence, directly or indirectly within this Realm'^ 

These words are in lieu of the declaration in the 
oath of supremacy, that the Pope or any other 
foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate, 
hath not and • ought not to have any jurisdiction, 
power, superiority, or pre-eminence, ecclesiastical or 
spiritual^ within this realm. 

The legal effect of this statute is, by distinguish- 
ing between the supposed temporal and spiritual 
jurisdiction of the See of Rome within this realm, 
and excluding the former only, — to permit by the 
most manifest implication the Roman Catholic 
subjects of the Crown, to hold that the See of 



Rome has spiritual jurisdiction in the dominions of 
the British Crown over themselves. The statute 
gives a clearly implied Parliamentary recognition to 
that doctrine, as being compatible with the oath of 
allegiance (with which the Roman Catholic oath 
contained in the statute commences), and lawful to 
be held by subjects of the Crown.* 

Thus the legal toleration and recognition of the 
Roman Catholic Church in this country was estab- 
lished. And accordingly the office of a Vicar 
Apostolic exercising the spiritual jurisdiction of the 
Pope in England has been recognised by the highest 
judicial authority in the Realm, for in the Sussex 
Peerage casef it was held by the House of Lords 
(all the Judges of the land being present) that a 
Roman Catholic bishop holding the office of Vicar 
Apostolic, is virtute officii peritus in the matrimonial 
Law of Rome, and competent to give evidence of 
that Law, because one of the duties of that office 
consists in the administration of that Pontifical 
Roman Law to the Roman Catholic subjects of the 
Crown within his vicariate or district. • 

It is also necessary to observe that the Royal 
supremacy appertaining to the Ecclesiastical pre- 
rogative of the Crown only embraces and affects 
the established Church, It follows that anything 
done in any other religious body, considered legally 
as a dissenting body, and not violating any legal 
rights, cannot be said to touch the supremacy. 

* Lord Lyudhurst, May 11, 184(). Hansard, v. 86, pp. 318,3 14. 
t 11. Clk. and Finel. 85. 



The Queen is by law *' in all causes, and over all 
persons, spiritual supreme :" that is to say, in the 
established Church, But the Roman Catholics being 
allowed to hold the spiritual authority of the Pope 
over themselves, cannot be within the spiritual 
jurisdiction or supremacy of the Crown. This must 
be kept in mind while considering the legal position 
of their Church and its acts. 

The question now arises, what consequences flow 
from this legal status of the Roman Catholic Church 
in the British empire? That Church is not barely 
tolerated, but recognised by or known to the Law of 
the land, not as a mere abstraction and a mere set of 
speculative opinions, but as a body of persons known 
to the Law, and having certain essential and charac- 
teristic features, without which they would cease to 
be what they are, and the most prominent and 
(politically and legally) by far the most important 
of which is their adherence to the spiritual authority 
of the Roman See. This distinctive feature of 
Roman obedience and communion is indeed clearly 
recognised by the stat. 31 Geo. IIL chap. 32, 
which grants relief in several important particulars 
to the persons previously subject to disabihties under 
the name of Papists, requiring them to make a 
declaration in these words—/. A, B, do hereby 
declare that I do profess the Roman Catholic 
religion,* 

Unless the Church be tolerated with the features 

* Co. Litt. 391. a. Note 2. Sect. III. 



8 

essential to her proper nature and constitution, such 
toleration is a manifest absurdity. 

One consequence of that toleration evidently is, 
that the Roman Catholic Church in England must 
possess liberty (so far as the temporal law is con- 
cerned), to manage its own internal affairs without 
let or hindrance, provided it violates no part of the 
Law of the land. 

This liberty must belong to every religious body 
tolerated by the Law, for it is of the very essence 
of toleration, and is enjoyed by all churches, sects, 
or denominations from the Scotch Episcopalians to 
the Society of Friends. Thus no one could raise any 
valid objections if the former thought fit to declare 
and constitute their Primus an Archbishop, or to 
revive the Archbishopric of St. Andrews, or to in- 
crease the number of their diocesan bishops, or if 
the latter placed themselves under the spiritual 
government of one or more heads or rulers. 

Having laid down these general principles, let us 
proceed to the facts, material for the consideration 
of the present new position of the Roman Catholic 
Church in England. 

For nearly two centuries the Roman Catholic 
Church in England has been governed by Vicars 
Apostolic, that is to say, the Pope's Vicars — Bishops 
deputed by his Holiness as the immediate Bishop 
of the English Church, and removeable by him at 
pleasure. The kingdom was in 1688 divided into 
four districts or vicariates, over each of which 



a Vicar Apostolic held episcopal jurisdiction as a 
Delegate of the Roman See. In the year 1840 the 
number of these districts and Vicars Apostolic was 
increased by the Pope, and the kingdom was divided 
into eight districts. 

Under this form of polity the Church was in a 
mere missionary state, which has given occasion to 
a Protestant writer to say, that " the Romish com- 
munity had not any bishops" — the episcopal cha- 
racter not being essential to the Vicars Apostolic, 
and because they " have no ordinary power over the 
English Romanists, being merely deputies of the 
Roman Pontiff, who may revoke their commissions 
at his own will and pleasure."* 

I must candidly admit, that in one sense there is 
some apparent colour for this line of argument, which 
is a standard and favourite topic with Anglican con- 
troversial writers against us. No doubt the Ecclesias- 
tical constitution of the Catholic body under Vicars 
Apostolic instead of Diocesans was utterly new in 
English history, and anomalous ; and accordingly 
we have been constantly taunted with the out- 
landish titles of our bishops of Melipotamus, Tra- 
chis, or Samosata. No one, indeed, who has any 
knowledge of ecclesiastical law and history, can 
hold such a form of government to be otherwise 
than of an essentially temporary and provisional 
nature. To deny this position would be a betrayal 
of gross ignorance of the subject. 

* Palmer on the Church, Part ii. chap. ii. sec. xi. 



10 

The polity in question was adopted and continued 
as matter of necessity — dictated by the penal statutes, 
by persecution, and by the prejudices of the nation 
and the government of this country. But no one 
well informed on the subject ever supposed that its 
duration would, or could, consistently with the con- 
stitutional principles of the Church, be prolonged 
beyond the operation of those causes. Let us pursue 
our statement of facts. 

Within the last ten years the numbers of the 
Catholic laity and clergy, and their churches and 
chapels, have progressively, and, latterly, to a con- 
siderable extent increased. This has no doubt 
chiefly proceeded from the liberty of preaching and 
teaching and writing which the Catholics have of 
late years enjoyed. It is perfectly natural that 
Protestants should feel jealousy and dislike of this 
course of events. But are fair discussion and the 
free investigation of religious truth to be suppressed ? 
If not, the result, whatever it may be, must be 
submitted to. That result has been decidedly fa- 
vourable to the propagation of the Catholic religion 
in this country. I state this as a mere dry fact ma- 
terial to the matter in hand, meaning nothing but 
what is most respectful to the members of the Es- 
tablished Church and the Dissenters. 

In the altered state of things just described, the 
question naturally suggested itself, whether that 
temporary and provisional form of government by 
Vicars Apostolic, adopted under circumstances of 



11 

danger and persecution, ought not to terminate? It 
is avowedly of a mere missionary character, and a 
system which the Church uses in heathen countries, 
such as China, or in countries where she is barely 
tolerated ; and accordingly the erection of a regular 
Hierarchy has repeatedly been asked of the Holy 
See by the English Catholics. 

That missionary state seemed unworthy of the 
liberality of the country. It seemed to imply a dis- 
trust of the justice and toleration of public opinion 
It appeared unfit, having regard to the numbers and 
respectability of the Catholic body here, including 
some of the most ancient and illustrious houses in 
the kingdom, both among the nobility and the 
landed gentry, and a great mass of persons of station, 
education, and wealth, besides numbers of the indus- 
trious and intelligent commonalty of the land. 

A change was moreover required by the ancient, es- 
tablished, and constitutional principles of the Church, 
and for the spiritual interests of the people. I have 
entered into this part of the subject to shew the true 
reasons of what has been done, and that they regard 
our own Church and its internal management only, 
and not any political or external matters; but it would 
have been sufficient to say that in the lawful exercise 
of the liberty which the law of the land allows to 
the Catholic Church in England, an important 
change in the constitution of the clergy of that 
Church has been made. It does not affect any 



12 

legal or civil rights, and therefore it in no respect 
violates the supreme, civil or temporal jurisdiction 
of the Crown. And as it only regards the internal 
governance of a body which the law views as a 
dissenting body, the change in question has no 
reference whatever to the ecclesiastical supremacy 
of the Crown. 

That change is the only one that could be made 
agreeably to the discipline of the Church, — namely, 
the abolition of the Vicars Apostolic, and the crea- 
tion of an Archbishop and Diocesan Bishoprics 
and Bishops, invested with what have been incor- 
rectly called " territorial titles.^' Is this measure 
contrary to the law of the land ? No. I defy any 
lawyer to shew that there is any difference in point 
of legality between the Vicars-Apostolic and the 
new Archbishop of Westminster and Diocesan 
Bishops, or that the new dioceses are in any respect 
distinguishable, according to the law of the land, 
from the eight districts or Vicariates which were 
regularly set out and territorially defined by Papal 
authority in 1840, and have existed for ten years 
without any one suggesting a single doubt of their 
legality — which, so far as regards the office of Vicar 
Apostolic, was recognized, as I have shewn, by the 
House of Lords, in the Sussex peerage case. 

That form of administration, by Vicars Apostolic, 
was originally created in the seventeenth century, 
and subsequently extended in 1840, by precisely the 



13 

same authority, and in the very same way in which 
the diocesan form of spiritual government has now 
been instituted. 

In the British Colonies the see of Rome has 
repeatedly erected Archbishoprics and Bishoprics, 
with so-called territorial titles, created provinces 
and dioceses, and appointed Diocesan Archbishops 
and Bishops, without the consent of the British 
Government, and it has never been successfully 
maintained that those acts of spiritual jurisdiction 
are contrary to law. Thus, in 1849, the Bishopric 
of Port Louis was created by the Pope, and Bishop 
Collier, Vicar ApostoHc in the colony, was raised to 
that see. And the Pope has erected the Arch- 
bishopric of Sidney, and the Bishoprics of Adelaide 
and Melbourne, in Australia. In the case of the 
Bishopric of Melbourne, the Anglican Bishop con- 
tended that the Catholic diocesan had been guilty 
of a violation of the law by the assumption of the 
style of his see ; hut the law officers of the Colony, 
to whom the question was referred hy the Government, 
held that the Catholic Bishop might, without ille- 
gality, call himself Bishop of Melbourne. 

It is true that the Government has not recognized 
the style of Archbishop of Sidney, and Bishop of 
Adelaide and Melbourne, used by the Catholic 
Bishops of those dioceses. But the Government do 
recognise the rank of those prelates as Archbishop 
and Bishops, giving to them the same honorary 
prefixes of Lord and Your Grace which the law or 



14 

usage attributes to the prelates of the Establishment.* 
We may infer that those Catholic prelates are not 
held by the British Government to have been guilty 
of any offence by receiving from the Pope their style 
and quality as diocesans, though that style is the 
same which has been conferred by the Crown on 
Bishops of the Established Church. And our 
Government never raade any complaint or represen- 
tation on the subject to the Court of Rome. 

It is, moreover, important to mention that the 
style and title of the Irish Catholic prelates has been 
recognised by the Government ; for by the Com- 
mission under the Charitable Bequests Act (13 Jan. 
J 845), the Catholic Archbishops are styled as such, 
and placed above an earl, and in the instrument 
appointing the visitors to the new colleges. Dr. 
Cullen and Dr. Murray are described as the Most 
Reverend the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ar- 
magh, and the Most Reverend the Roman Catholic 
Archbishop of Dublin. Yet these are what are 
called " territorial titles," and are borne and enjoyed 
by Prelates of the Established Church. 

And the Dublin Cemetery Act, 9 & 10 Vict, 
cap. ccclxi. (1846), which (sect. 53) is to be 
deemed and taken to be a public Act, contains the 
following clause: — 

^^ And be it enacted that his Grace Daniel Murray, 
Archbishop, and his successors, exercising the same 

* Pari. Paper (H. of L.). No. 3, 1849, p. 8. 



15 

spiritual jurisdiction as he now exercises in the 
Diocese of Dublin, as an Archbishop, may, from 
time to time, appoint at the desire of the said govern- 
ing body a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church 
to officiate as Chaplain in any such burial grounds, 
and such Chaplain shall be licensed by and subject 
to the jurisdiction of the said Archbishop ; and the 
said Archbishop shall have power to revoke any such 
licence and to remove such Chaplain for any causes 
which may appear to the said Archbishop canonical,'' 

Here we find Archbishop Murray described as 
his Grace Archbishop Murray — exercising spiritual 
jurisdiction as an Archbishop in the Diocese of 
Dublin. His successors are included in the descrip- 
tion. His spiritual jurisdiction within the Diocese 
of Dublin is recognized, and the Canon Law is pro 
tanto recognized as prevailing in the Diocese of 
Dublin, and to be administered by Archbishop 
Murray and his successors therein. And all this is 
the more important, because the Act could not 
specifically describe the Archbishop as Archbishop 
of Dublin without partially repealing Sect. 24 of 
Stat. 10, Geo. IV. ch. 7. But, according to 
Ecclesiastical law and usage, an archbishop exer- 
cising jurisdiction as such within the Diocese of 
Dublin, can only be described by the canonical title 
of Archbishop of Dublin, The two descriptions 
are legally identical, the former being an accurate 
definition of the latter. 

But the fact of the Government not recognising 



16 

the Provincial and Diocesan, or ^^ territoriaV^ style 
of the Colonial Catholic Bishops is immaterial; 
for we do not ask the Government to recognise the 
style of Archbishop of Westminster or Bishop of 
Liverpool. This would hardly be a reasonable 
request to a Protestant government, in a Protestant 
country, though of course we should rejoice if they 
did so. We only ask to be allowed unmolested to 
adopt and use that form of administration which the 
spiritual welfare of our Church requires, provided 
we respect the law. Our Bishops ask at the hands 
of the Crown and the Government neither privileges 
nor endowments, nor assistance of any sort whatever, 
nor even the recognition of their style as diocesans. 
They only ask, and her Majesty's faithful and loyal 
Roman Catholic subjects demand in their name, 
full toleration and the protection of the law of the 
land. 

The very terms of Stat. 10. Geo. IV. cap. 7. 
sect. xxiv. afford an argument, shewing that the 
assumption and use of the so-called " territoriaV* 
style and title of the newly created Catholic Arch- 
bishopric and Bishoprics are not illegal. 

The words of the clause in question are as fol- 
low : — 

** And whereas the Protestant Episcopal Church of England 
and Ireland, and likewise the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 
and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are by the 
respective acts of union of England and Scotland, and of 
Great Britain and Ireland, established permanently and in- 



17 

violably : and whereas the right and title of archbishops of their 
respective provinces, of bishops of their sees, and of deans of 
their deaneries, as well in England as in Scotland, have been 
settled and established by law ; be it therefore enacted, that if 
any person after the commencement of this act, other than the 
person thereto authorized by law, shall assume or use the name, 
style, or title of archbishop of any province, bishop of any 
bishopric, or dean of any deanery, in England or Ireland, he 
shall for every such offence forfeit, and pay the sum of one hun- 
dred pounds." 

It is clear that the act forbids the assumption and 
use not of the style and title of archbishop, bishop, 
or dean of any place whatever, in England or Ire- 
land, but only of any archbishopric, bishopric, or 
deanery belonging to the Estabhshed Church. 
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. And we 
may infer* that the assumption and use of new 
ecclesiastical titles not belonging to the Estab- 
lishment is lawful. The infereuce is obvious. And 
accordingly the late Pope Gregory XVI., erected 
about ten years ago, a new bishopric in Ireland, 
that of Galway, and appointed the Rt. Rev. Dr. 
Blake to that see, without any opposition from the 
Government of the day. 

Mr. Charles Butler, in his Historical Memoirs of 
the English Roman Catholics, (vol. ii. p. 251.) 
mentions the very remarkable fact that throughout 
the reign of Elizabeth and James I., it was the wish 

* Gov. and Comp. for Smelting Lead, v. Richardson, 3. Burr. 
1344— R. V. Cunningham, 5. East. 478. 



18 

of their friends in power, that they should obtain 
from Rome the appointment of regular bishops in 
ordinary. The creation of a hierarchy, — the mea- 
sure now so violently attacked, is indeed a conces- 
sion on the part of the Holy See to the English 
Roman Catholics, because it places their spiritual 
affairs directly in the hands of permanent English 
ordinary Bishops, under an English Archbishop, 
instead of mere delegates removable at pleasure, and 
thus Mr. Butler states, that it was so generally 
understood that the appointment of bishops would 
be acceptable to Elizabeth and her ministers, that 
some of the Catholics objected to it as a measure 
desired by their adversaries, and a modification of 
the direct power of Rome in this country. 

And here it is necessary to observe that the clause 
in the late Papal letter, abrogating all contrary 
customs, &c. in the Catholic Church in England, is 
simply equivalent to the words familiar to English 
lawyers, any law, custom, or usage, to the contrary, 
notwithstanding, and was requisite, at least in point 
of form, to annul all dispositions and enactments 
made for our Church in England by the Holy See, 
with reference to its late form of ecclesiastical 
government, and to provide that the new Bishops 
might not be incumbered with the old English 
Catholic customs and canonical laws, which belonged 
to a different state of things, when that Church held 
possession of the old archbishoprics and bishoprics. 



ft 

We come now to the often repeated argument, 
that the Archbishopric of Westminster and the 
Diocesan Bishoprics have been erected, and the 
Cardinal Wiseman, and the other prelates appointed 
to them by a foreign Prince and Potentate, and that 
therefore the rights of the nation and the sovereignty 
of the Crown have been violated. This argument 
has been almost answered by anticipation. 

It is worth nothing, unless our opponents can shew 
that the acts of authority in question are temporal 
or civil, as contradistinguished from acts of spiritual 
jurisdiction, and for this reason. I have shewn that 
the Law of the land allows Roman Catholic sub- 
jects of the Imperial Crown to hold that the Pope 
has spiritual jurisdiction, at least over themselves, 
within the realm, though he is also accidentally a 
temporal foreign Prince or Potentate. It is indeed 
absurd to say that that spiritual jurisdiction is illegal 
as regarding Her Majesty's Roman Catholic sub- 
jects, when the law, by clear and manifest impli- 
cation, allows them to hold that the Pope has 
spiritual jurisdiction over the Catholics within this 
realm.* 

Besides, they would cease to be Roman Catholics, 
(their legal designation since the Stat. 31 Geo. III. 
chap. 32.) if they did not hold that the Pope has 
such spiritual jurisdiction. And to say that the 
Roman Catholic Church is not illegal in Her 

* Stat. 10 Geo. IV. ch. 7. sect. 2. 



20 

Majesty's dominions, and yet that a fundamental 
necessary doctrine of that Church is illegal, would 
be a gross and monstrous contradiction. If we are 
not allowed by law to hold a doctrine, without 
which we should cease to be Roman Catholics, it 
obviously and inevitably follows that the law does 
not permit us to be Roman Catholics at all. Which 
is absurd. Persecute us, drive us out of the realm, 
altogether, and into perpetual banishment, but do not 
hold out to us the delusive phantom of an apparent 
toleration, and then deny us the liberty to hold that 
doctrine on which the very existence of our Church, 
as the Catholic Church, built upon the rock of Peter, 
and bound to his successor the supreme head and 
centre of unity on earth, most undeniably depends. 

If the lawfulness of the spiritual authority of the 
Pope over the Roman Catholics within the realm 
be admitted, (which no rational man can as matter 
of law deny), it is clear that no power except 
the Pope can erect and create Roman Catholic 
Bishoprics here, for he is the only primary source 
of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in our 
Church. And Rome alone can give to the Bishops 
of that Church mission. The Vicars Apostolic 
derived all their authority from that same foreign 
power the Pope, and in this respect they were not 
distinguishable from the new Bishops. 

The erection of Bishoprics is an integral and 
essential part of the exercise of the Pope's spiritual 



• 21 

authority, as the only primary source of spiritual 
or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the centre of Ca- 
tholic unity on earth. How then can it be said that 
by erecting Bishoprics in England, the Pope has 
exceeded his legally recognised and admitted spiritual 
power, and exercised a civil or temporal jurisdiction 
or authority ? 

The Pope has not created Bishoprics in the 
Church established by law. He has not created 
bishoprics to which any legal, civil, or political right 
is incident. And here the present case materially 
differs from some which have been cited from the 
period before the Reformation; in which disputes 
arose between the See of Rome and the Crown, 
with respect to the patronage of offices, and the 
exercise of jurisdiction in the Church, then es- 
tablished as the Church of the State. The Pope 
has only created certain offices in a Church, which 
is in the eye of the Law a dissenting body, — and as 
much a voluntary society, as any other incorporated 
body enjoying no legal privileges or franchises. 
And the theological claims of our Church do not 
alter the case. They belong to religion, and are 
within the inviolable rights of liberty of conscience, 
over which no human power can exercise jurisdic- 
tion. The claim of our Church to be the Catholic 
Church, is matter of dogma and belief, to be met 
by argument, and not by the strong arm of the 
law, or by meetings, addresses, and agitation. It 

c 2 



22 

has nothing to do with temporal or legal supremacy. 
— Assuming that a regular Hierarchy is requisite 
for the spiritual welfare of our community in 
England, by whom could that Hierarchy be created? 
Ought we to have applied far Bishops to the 
Crown ? If not, whence could the creation of our 
archbishopric and bishoprics proceed, except from 
Rome ? And if such creation by the Pope be not 
forbidden by the law of the land, then what ground 
of complaint is there against our Church ? It will 
not surely be contended that the Pope could omit to 
adopt a measure required, in his Holiness's opinion 
and that of his advisers, for the service of God and 
his Church, because the position of the British 
Government with reference to the Holy See, preclu- 
ded the Crown from giving to that measure a direct 
sanction. The British Government ignores the 
Pope diplomatically, except as " the Sovereign of 
the Roman States,"* and ought not to complain 
that his Holiness did not ask a consent, which the 
Crown could not give, — as though there were a 
Concordat subsisting between the See of Rome, and 
her Majesty. 

We here find an answer to those who argue that 
as in Catholic countries new bishoprics are not 
erected by the Pope without the concurrence of the 
Government, therefore the same rule must obtain 
in England. The diversity between the two cases 

* Stat. 11 and 12 Vict. ch. 108. 



23 

is manifest. In those countries, the Catholic 
Church is the established — or the chief established, 
or an established religion of the state, and the 
relations between and the legal rights of the Holy 
See and the government are regulated by express 
agreement, and express concession of the Pope — 
by Concordat. Besides, the creation of a bishopric 
in a Church established by law, affects civil, and 
legal, and political rights, incident thereto. These 
are; reasons which do not exist here. In England, 
the Roman Catholic Church is, as I have already 
said, on the same legal footing as the different 
bodies of Protestant dissenters. The State gives her 
nothing, and can therefore ask nothing of her, any 
more than of the Wesley ans or the Society of 
Friends. And, indeed, the direct interference of 
the head of the Anglican Church with the internal 
government of the Catholic Church, seems as 
absurd on Protestant^ as on Catholic grounds. But 
it would be still more absurd to conclude, that there- 
fore we must remain to the end of the world 
without diocesan bishops. 

The same argument shews how inapplicable to 
the case in hand, are precedents from the history of 
England before the Reformation, when the king 
gave investiture of temporalities to Catholic 
Bishops, — for those prelates held land of the Crown 
in capite, and sat in Parliament as Spiritual Lords. 
And so the old statutes of Provisors, and prae- 



24. 

munire before the reign of Henry VIII. related 
to a totally different state of things, and those since 
that time are inapplicable to the present case. 

The notion that the erection of a Bishopric is an 
act of civil and temporal jurisdiction or sovereignty, 
arises from a confusion of ideas. 

In the first place, why have new spiritual titles 
been created in England by the Popes? Because 
the Stat. 10 Geo. IV. ch. 7, forbade the use of the 
old titles, except by the clergy of the Protestant 
Church by law established ; and though it would 
not have been difficult, by legal astuteness, to avoid 
the penal consequences of that prohibition, it seemed 
best, out of respect for the civil power, that the 
Roman Catholic Prelates should have new titles. It 
remains to be seen, whether the creation of such new 
spiritual titles, and the assignment of dioceses to the 
Prelates bearing them, be an encroachment on the 
temporal sovereignty of the civil power. 

There is no authority whatever for holding that a 
bishopric with the style of a Metropolitan or diocesan 
bishop, such as Archbishop of Westminster, or 
Bishop of Birmingham^ is per se — a temporal dig- 
nity or an office — or a dignity within the meaning 
of the Common Law, which makes the Crown the 
fountain of honour and office. It is a notion arising 
from an imperfect knowledge of the subject. 

Because the prelates of the Protestant establish- 
ment have the office and dignity of Lords of Parlia- 



25 

ment, and enjoy a certain legal rank and precedence 
by the temporal law ; therefore, it is supposed that 
a diocesan bishop is necessarily clothed with what 
the law denominates a dignity^ and an office, which 
must emanate from the Royal Prerogative. But 
this is not so, and it is difficult to conceive a 
greater error in history and in law. 

Read the Vllth Book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical 
Polity, especially §. V. and other passages where he 
speaks of Bishops " with restramty^ that is to say, 
Bishops of particular places. He says that St. 
James was made Bishop of Jerusalem, and Evodius, 
Bishop of Antioch, with something like Divine 
direction of the Holy Ghost. At §. VHL, speak- 
ing of bishops' territories, he defines a see and a 
diocese thus : " The Church where the bishop is 
set, with his college of presbyters about him, we 
call a see, the local compass of his authority we 
term a diocese." And he says not one word of the 
notion, that neither a see nor a diocese could be 
created except by the civil power, or that a bishop 
with restraint — that is to say, of a particular city, is 
a dignity or an office, which must emanate from 
the Regal Prerogative. And with regard to Me- 
tropolitans, he says : " They which dream that if 
civil authority had not given pre-eminence to one 
city more than another, there had never grown an 
inequality among bishops, are deceived ) superiority 
of one bishop over another would be requisite in 



26 

the Church, though that civil distinction were abo- 
lished." Everywhere he speaks of bishoprics, sees, 
and dioceses, as spiritual offices and districts perfectly 
distinct from the sanctions of the civil power. They 
existed before the reign of Constantine. And it is 
matter of undeniable history, which no one will 
hesitate about, who has so much as looked over the 
pages of a common book, such as Bingham's An- 
tiquities (Book II. chap. 1.) that the Patriarchs, 
Metropolitans, and Diocesan Bishops of the Eastern 
Church, were entitled Bishops of particular places, 
— such as of Ephesus, of Alexandria, and of An- 
tioch, and of Smyrna, even before the reign of 
Constantine, and when the Church was unrecog- 
nized and even persecuted by the civil powers. The 
purely spiritual office of an archbishop, or a bishop, 
of a particular place, as contradistinguished from 
the temporalities and the temporal incidents, such 
as a seat in Parliament, sometimes annexed thereto 
by the civil power, is indeed far more ancient than 
any dignity known to the common law. 

And let me remind the learned reader, that 
Cruise says nothing of Bishops,* and Selden does 
not include Bishops in his celebrated treatise of 
Titles of Honour. 

It is for these reasons a strange error to compare 
the creation of an Archbishop of Westminster to 
that of a Duke or Marquis of Westminster. The 

* Cruise on Dignities, Cruise Digest, tit. xxvi. Dignities. 



27 

former is a purely spiritual dignitary in his own 
Church. He claims to be an Archbishop — not in 
the Established Church, but of his own Church. 
He neither claims nor asks anything at the hand 
of the civil power or the law. He is perfectly wil- 
ling that the law should ignore him altogether, for 
he claims nothing that in any way touches or affects 
legal or civil rights. But the latter, if he be not 
Duke or Marquis of Westminster by law, is nothing 
but an impostor, because the titles of Duke or Mar- 
quis are mere creations or creatures of the temporal 
law. 

The Catholic Bishops of the new sees are in the 
same position with reference to the law as the Pro- 
testant Bishops in Scotland. The latter are called^ 
in their community, Bishops of divers places, such 
as Edinburgh, Moray, Elgin, and Brechin ; but the 
law knows them not as such. They have no legal 
status. But who could compare them to persons 
calling themselves, without legal title, Earl of 
Edinburgh or Moray, Elgin or Brechin ? The ab- 
surdity of such a parallel is manifest. 

They are described in Stat. 3 and 4 Vict. chap. 
33, as " exercising episcopal functions within some 
district or place in Scotland," and their local titles 
have no legal existence. Their titles are therefore 
precisely analogous, so far as the law is concerned, 
to those of the new Catholic Bishops. 

The mere fact that in England there are legal 



28 

Bishops — Prelates of the Protestant Establishment 
recognized by the law, and whose right, style, and 
title are established by law-r-is immaterial to the 
question, unless it be shewn that the law also for- 
bids the assumption and use of the style of Arch- 
bishop or Bishop of any place whatever, in England 
and Wales, except by the Prelates of the Establish- 
ment ; and this is clearly not law. And, indeed, 
the existence of Bishops in Scotland is more repug- 
nant to the Presbyterian constitution of that part of 
the United Kingdom, than the toleration of Roman 
Catholic Bishops is to the Anglican Church Estab- 
lishment, which, as appears by the Bidding Prayer, 
only professes (I do not use the word in an offensive 
sense) to be a branch of the Catholic Church by law 
established in these realms. As to the argument, 
that our Hierarchy is a schismatical violation of the 
rights of the Established Church, it is altogether 
theological, and therefore beside my purpose. The 
law of the land holds no such position. It may, 
however, be as well to observe, with respect to that 
purely ecclesiastical argument — that there were Ca- 
tholic Bishops of Montreal, Quebec, and Louisiana, 
before the creation of Anglican Protestant Bishops 
of those places. Are the Protestant Bishops usurpers? 
And if the Archbishop of Westminster be an intru- 
der in the see of the Bishop of London, then is the 
Anglican Bishop of Gibraltar an intruder in the see 
of the Catholic Bishop of Malta. But let us return 
to the legal and political view of the case. 



29 

The United States of America furnish a very 
important authority in support of my argument. 
There are within the territories of that Republic 
foui* Roman Catholic Archbishops and their suffra- 
gans, each bearing the style and title of Archbishop 
or Bishop of some one of the American towns. 
They are the Archbishop of Baltimore — the Bishops 
of New Orleans, Louisville, and Philadelphia ; the 
Archbishop of New York — the Bishops of Boston, 
Charleston, Richmond, and Cincinnati ; the Arch- 
bishop of St. Louis — the Bishops of Mobile, Vin- 
cennes, Dubuque, Nashville, Nachez, Galveston, 
Pittsburgh, Little Rock, Milwaukie, and Chicago ; 
and the Archbishop of Walla Walla — and the 
Bishops of Albany, Cleveland, and Buffalo. All 
these Bishoprics were erected by the see of Rome 
without the sanction of the Government of the 
country. Thus (to give the most recent instance) 
the Archbishop of New York has just been created^ 
and the Archbishop, the Most Rev. Dr. Hughes, 
has received the pallium, or badge of metropolitan 
jurisdiction, from the Pope without the expressed 
consent of the civil power. Is it probable, that 
whereas all dignities are against the constitution of 
that Democracy, these Bishoprics would be tolerated 
by the Government of the United States, if they 
were dignities created in America by a foreign 
power ? The supposition is absurd. The Ameri- 
cans understand the true nature — the purely spiri- 



30 

tual character of these ecclesiastical offices, and 
accordingly they never have imagined that the 
(erection of Roman Catholic Archbishoprics and 
Bishoprics within their territories was any violation 
of their constitution or their sovereignty, of which 
they are as jealous guardians as any nation on earth. 

Let us now proceed to examine what has been the 
practice of the British Legislature and the Crown, 
bearing on the question in dispute, whether the 
erection of a Diocesan Bishopric, with the style and 
title of a place within a given territory, and the 
assignment of a diocese to the Bishop, be or be not 
an act of temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, supe- 
riority, or authority therein ? 

The Crown has a few years back created, under 
the provisions of Stat. 5 Vict. ch. 6, a Bishopric 
in parts beyond sea, where her Majesty's writ 
runneth not — to wit, at Jerusalem. And by the 
warrant under the Royal sign manual and signet 
for the consecration of Dr. Alexander, the Bishop 
appointed to that see, it is provided as follows, that 
is to say, '^ And we are graciously pleased to assign 
Syria, Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia as the limit 
within which the said Michael Solomon Alexander 
may exercise spiritual jurisdiction, pursuant to the 
said Act {5 Vict. chap. 6) subject nevertheless to such 
alterations in their limit as we from time to time may 
assign" Here we find a diocese regularly assigned 
by the British Crown in a foreign country, accord- 



31 

ing to Hooker's definition of a diocese, already 
stated in these words : ^^ the local compass of his (a 
Bishop's) authority we term a diocese.'* And the 
Crown expressly reserves to itself, from time to time, 
to alter the limits of that foreign diocese. All this 
was done without the consent or concurrence of the 
various civil powers governing Syria, Chaldea, 
Egypt, and Abyssinia ; and throughout the whole 
proceedings there is no mention of any such consent 
being sought or obtained ! 

I cannot admit the relevancy of any such quibble 
as the distinction between the style of Bishop of 
Jerusalem and that of Bishop at Jerusalem, except 
as a matter of form, the latter title being utterly 
new and unprecedented in ecclesiastical law and 
history. The plain, honest question is this — Did or 
did not the Crown constitute and erect a bishop's 
see and bishopric in foreign parts, at Jerusalem, and 
assign to the bishop thereoi a diocese or district (not 
merely certain congregations), comprising Syria, 
Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia, countries out of the 
British empire, reserving to itself power from time 
to time to alter the limits of that foreign diocese ? 

In truth, the notion of what has been called a 
territorial title of a bishopric is an error utterly 
without the support of any authority whatever in 
law or in history. It is a mere feudal idea misap- 
plied. The correct view of this point appears 
clearly from Hooker's definition of a see, given above* 



32 

** The Church where a Bishop is set we call a see'* 
The Bishop is styled the Bishop of the Church, 
which is called his see. But here Church does not 
mean a material building, but a community of 
churchmen in a given place. So the Bishop of the 
Church at Ephesus is Bishop of the See of Ephesus, 
and according to unvarying ecclesiastical usage, 
from the earliest ages downwards, he is styled 
Bishop of Ephesus, To call him Bishop at Ephesus, 
or of the Church of St. John or St. James at 
Ephesus, would be simply an unmeaning absurdity, 
founded on a mere formal and verbal distinction, 
"without any substantial difference. 

A Catholic Bishop is not and cannot be Bishop of 
a territory, but Bishop of a flock. He is not set over 
land or dominions, but over persons. Thus no 
Catholic Bishop is or can be entitled Bishop of a terri- 
tory. He takes his spiritual title from his see — that is 
to say, " the Church where he is set ;" as for instance 
Ephesus or Westminster. And ** the Church" here 
means the flock in communion with him at that place* 
And that Church gives a name to the Bishop and 
his diocese. 

If it be said that Bishop Alexander was set over 
Protestants only, I answer that the Cardinal Arch- 
bishop of Westminster is set over Roman Catholics 
only ; though, as the former no doubt desired that 
all persons within his diocese would become Pro- 
testants, so the latter hopes that the inhabitants of 
his archdiocese will hasten into the fold of the Roman 



33 

Catholic Church. The two cases are, therefore, 
in this respect not distinguishable. 

And it cannot be alleged that Bishop Alexander 
was set over British congregations only (though 
even if it were so, the case bearing on the power of 
erecting Bishoprics in foreign parts would not be 
altered), for he was also empowered by the Royal 
warrant to " exercise spiritual jurisdiction over such 
other Protestant congregations as may be desirous 
of placing themselves under his authority." These 
words, no doubt, apply primarily to Prussian Pro- 
testants, but they unquestionably include all and 
any Protestants within the diocese, even natives of 
Syria, Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia. This view 
of the meaning of the warrant is established beyond 
dispute to be correct by the *' Statement of proceed^ 
ings'" published expressly " by authority'' at the 
time, which alleges (p. 6. 8.) that the Bishop was to 
receive into his Church Jewish and Gentile converts. 
Those converts would be natives of the country, and 
subjects of the civil power thereof, or at least not 
British subjects. The duty of the Bishop was there- 
fore partly what has been termed aggressive. As 
for the fact that Jerusalem is a place in partibus in- 
Jidelium, and that there were native Bishops of dif- 
ferent Eastern sects there already, it is quite imma- 
terial and irrelevant to the legal and political ques- 
tion which we are considering, though it has some 
bearing on the theological problem whether and how 



34 

the Protestant Church of England was entitled to 
send a missionary Diocesan Bishop to the East. 

We may conclude that the case of the Anglican 
Bishopric of Jerusalem is exactly in point, and it 
establishes that the Legislature and the Crown of 
England hold that there is nothing unlawful, or in 
any respect wrong in the act of erecting a Bishopric 
and appointing a Bishop, and assigning to him a 
diocese in a foreign country, without the consent of 
the Government of that country. 

The Statute 5 Vict. chap. 6. would suffice by 
itself to establish this position. That statute em* 
powers the Archbishops of Canterbury or York to 
consecrate British subjects, or subjects or citizens of 
any foreign kingdom or state to be Bishops in any 
foreign country, whether such foreign subjects or 
citizens be- or be not subjects or citizens of the 
country in which they are to act. And this the act 
authorises, without the consent of the sovereign or 
government of such foreign subjects or citizens. 
And the statute enacts that " such Bishop or 
Bishops so consecrated may exercise within such 
limits" (that is to say, within such diocese) '* as may 
from time to time be assigned for that purpose in 
such foreign countries by her Majesty, spiritual 
jurisdiction over the ministers of British congrega- 
tions of the United Church of England and Ireland, 
and over such other Protestant congregations as 
may be desirous of placing themselves under his or 



35 

their authority." Not one word is said in the Act 
of any consent to be obtained from the Government 
of those foreign countries. 

Under and by virtue of this Statute, 5 Vict, 
chap. 6, it is fully lawful and competent to the 
Archbishops of Canterbury or York to consecrate a 
red Indian, or a black man from the coast of Africa 
to be Protestant Bishop of Rome, and her Majesty 
may assign to him for a diocese the States of the 
Roman Church, with spiritual jurisdiction over all 
Protestants and converts, present and future, within 
the territorial limits so assigned by Her Majesty's 
warrant. I have put an extreme case which may 
provoke a smile ; but it logically exemplifies the 
spirit and principle of the Statute, which seeks to 
impress on the Protestant Anglican Church a cha- 
racter of universality, extending its episcopacy be- 
yond the British empire, and is an authority of the 
highest nature for the position that by creating an 
Archbishop and Diocesan Bishops, forming a Ca- 
tholic hierarchy in England, the Pope has not 
assumed temporal jurisdiction, power, or authority 
within the realm, nor touched the Royal prerogative 
and the exclusive sovereign rights of the Crown and 
the Legislature, 

Under that same statute, the Crown has created 
another Bishopric, deriving its title from a place 
within Her Majesty's dominions, but invested with 
pastoral functions more extensive than that title 
imports. I mean the Anglican Bishopric of Gib- 

D 



36 

raltar. We have to consider not words but things, 
not form but substance. Now it cannot be denied 
that the Anglican Bishop of Gibraltar has committed 
to him, by his Church and the Government of this 
country, the pastoral episcopal care of all Protes- 
tants, whether converts or otherwise, in communion 
with that Church, or who may place themselves 
under his authority, not only in Gibraltar and 
Malta, but also in Italy. And accordingly he has 
made one or more visitations in the latter country, 
especially at Florence, Naples, and Rome, and has 
exercised episcopal functions in the Holy City, 
having a staff surmounted by a mitre and cross 
borne before him as a mark of his authority. 

No doubt he is primarily sent to Protestants, as 
the Archbishop of Westminster is primarily sent to 
Roman Catholics. But is the Bishop of Gibraltar 
exclusively sent to Protestants? No. He is too 
honest a man to say so. The Homilies of his Church 
call the Church of Rome the " idolatrous Church, 
afoul filthy old withered harlot, for she is indeed 
of antient years." And the Bishop of London has 
lately publicly stated in answer to an address from 
a part of his clergy, that the Church of Rome 
" undisguised ly teaches to her members the duty of 
giving to the creature that worship which is due to the 
Creator,'' — plainly implying thereby, though not 
venturing to say, that the Church of Rome positively 
enjoins idolatry specifically as such, thus committing 
an unequivocal act of the most impious apostasy ! 



37 

Can any man doubt that it would be the duty of 
the Anglican prelate as such, if he spoke the senti- 
ments of the bench of Bishops, to tell a Roman 
consulting him that the Papacy is an imposture, 
and the Roman Church idolatrous, and soul-destroy- 
ing, and that her children are bound, following the 
light of the Gospel, to desert her, and become Pro- 
testants, and enter his communion ? He could not 
with consistency say otherwise, unless what he 
believed to be true in England, he believed to be 
false at Rome. Nothing, indeed, but necessity or 
prudence should have prevented him from saying 
and preaching this everywhere in Rome where he 
could obtain a hearing. How then can it be said 
that exercising his pastoral functions and authority 
in Rome, they include exclusively, though they 
apply primarily to Protestants only ? Has he 
received, and has he ordained no Italian converts? 

In point of real substance then, his diocese extends 
to Italy and to Rome itself. And be it observed, 
that there is no native Protestant community at 
Rome, and all the Protestants there are either 
travellers and sojourners, or foreign residents. 

The truth is, that wherever the Roman Catholic 
Church and the Protestant Anglican establishment 
co-exist, they must be theologically antagonistic to 
each other for this simple reason, that they differ 
diametrically on essential points of faith, and there- 
fore one or the other teaches false doctrine. The 
extract I have just made from the published reply 



38 

of the Bishop of London, proves, at any rate, in what 
light these differences are regarded on one side. 
Whatever the Catholic Church may say or think of 
Protestants, certainly she says or thinks nothing 
worse than what it appears the Bishop of London 
thinks of her. I state this merely as a fact, and 
without any intention of entering into the province 
of the controversial theologian. 

The Bishops of the Establishment, who have 
solemnly engaged to "drive away strange and 
erroneous doctrine," believe themselves bound to 
oppose the progress of what they denominate Romish 
error. On the other hand, the Cardinal Archbishop 
of Westminster and his suffragans hold that the 
entire kingdom ought to embrace the faith of our 
Church as the only true religion. Let this great 
issue be fairly tried. Let it be tried by the test of 
argument, and not by that of force or political 
power. We in the mean time accept, without un- 
easiness, our present legal status and position, though 
under serious temporal and worldly and social dis- 
advantages, when compared with the Church of the 
State and the Law. 

We submit ourselves as good Englishmen and 
loyal subjects to the Law of the land. But we 
claim full liberty so long as we do not infringe the 
Law and the rights of our fellow-countrymen, to 
adopt such measures of internal ecclesiastical ar- 
rangement and administration as are best in accord- 
ance with the constitutional principles of our Church, 



39 

and most conducive to its prosperity and the welfare 
of our religion. We claim this liberty in the name 
of that honest spirit, which Englishmen familiarly 
call fair play. We claim it in the name of true 
toleration and religious liberty, which consist in 
something more than the mere absence of perse- 
cution, and the possession of equal civil rights. 
They require also that religious bodies be allowed 
free action within their own communion, and 
touching their own affairs, without external inter- 
ference by the State or by popular clamour, provided 
they do not act contrary to law, nor attempt to 
violate the rights of others. 

We claim, therefore, the liberty of developing 
the internal means of our own Church, respecting at 
the same time the opinions of others and the laws 
of the country. Our Church polity is founded on 
Episcopacy. The Roman Catholic Church is the 
most Episcopal religious body in the world. We 
therefore claim as essential to our religious liberty, 
the full development and entire toleration of our 
Episcopacy, in that form which the constitution of 
our Church and the traditions of Christian antiquity 
from the Apostolic ages prescribe. It is no fault of 
ours if the stately and venerable aspect of that Episco- 
pacy gives jealousy or umbrage. We can only protest 
that we mean no disrespect to the majority of the 
nation, nor anything in the slightest degree incom- 
patible with the most devoted loyalty to our beloved 
Sovereign. 



40 

The titles of our Hierarchy give them no legal 
rank, precedency, privilege, or power. They ask 
nothing of the Crown or the Legislature, beyond 
what is given as matter of right to every denomina- 
tion of religionists and to every sect. They ask no 
favour. They take their stand upon the Law of the 
realm, — not indeed interpreted according to the 
notions of those, who when they find the Law 
against them, appeal to what they call its spirit — (a 
device utterly subversive of liberty and sound juris- 
prudence) —but expounded in the books, and by 
the Queen^s courts, and judges. 

There is little danger that the present popular 
feeling against them will continue, or produce any 
serious results. Truth and common sense must 
prevail in the end. 

I do not believe that the people of this country 
will be led away by the old intolerant cry of No 
Popery, The Dissenters, and the enlightened and 
liberal members of the Establishment, will repudiate 
or distrust those who call in the secular arm to 
strike one of the parties to a theological disputation. 
They will view with suspicion certain expressions of 
zeal for the Royal prerogative, mingled with theo- 
logical positions apparently derived from our Church, 
and by no means of a Protestant tendency. 

And practical men must see, that if penal laws 
be provided for the Clergy of the Catholic Church in 
England, it will be difficult not to include Ireland 
within their enactments. It is not easy to stop in 



41 

the course of interference with the internal affairs of 
religious bodies. Once let the old hatred of Catho- 
licity—the iVb Popery spirit — have full swing even 
for a short time, and a single Parliamentary success, 
and who shall say where it will stop ? The United 
Protestant Church of England and Ireland by law 
established, may claim the same protection in one 
part of the kingdom as in the other, and, indeed, 
the Irish Roman Catholic Prelates who hold the 
very identical titles which the law gives to those of 
the Establishment, stand on more delicate ground 
than the Archbishop of Westminster and his sufFra- 
ofans. And the Irish Catholics will not be slow to 
perceive, that when the English Roman Catholic 
Hierarchy is put down by a penal statute, it will be 
an evil hour for their own Church. That would 
be a great step towards the restoration of Protestant 
ascendancy. The aggravation of the difficulties of 
Irish politics, which cannot fail to result from such 
a measure, and from the spirit dictating it, en- 
couraged and strengthened by success, must be 
sufficiently obvious. 

But the good sense and good feeling and justice 
of the country must deaden and extinguish the 
agitation, when the first ebullition of mistaken zeal 
has subsided, and the sensible and unprejudiced 
part of the community have seen the real merits of 
the case. Zealots and partizans, and those whose 
political opinions are unfavourable to toleration and 
full rehgious liberty, will continue to argue or de- 



42 

claim and agitate. They will be listened to with 
that respect, which many among them deserve, or 
else neglected. But the distinction between the 
political and legal and the theological part of the 
case once seen and appreciated, and the real nature 
of the pretensions and character of the new Catholic 
Prelates once understood, — men of business and un- 
prejudiced persons, both in and out of Parliament, 
will retire from the contest, leaving the Roman 
Catholics to adopt such form of administration in 
their Church, as seems to them most calculated for 
its advantage and their own. Then angry invec- 
tives and imputations against us will cease or be 
disregarded, and the country will return to its 
wonted peace, and the useful discussion of matters 
tending to benefit in common every class of her 
Majesty's subjects. 



THE END. 



G. Norman, Printer, Maiden Lane> 
Corent Garden. 



RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
University of California Library 
or to the 
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
University of California 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 

• 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
(510)642-6753 

• 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
booi<s to NRLF 

• Renewals and recharges may be made 4 
days prior to due date. 

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
SENYONILL 



JUL 1 6 2001 



U. C. BERKELEY 



12,000(11/95) 



















»'*■ '•'#> ■■^"- "■ ■ ■-■-'■■^ 



J.7 










,'^ *'/.■:'{,■. 







J^'^. 



0'"t' 






^•S,..t^ - 






■i-:,^ 












^^■'m 










,^. «?.' ^J;^. 









^.v-!^ 

















vv;*^' .#.. 







,M« .^-^.i 









-■■ 9^ ^\ \ f 



^y^:^* 



r:^/^^!i^ ^■^^^^mc V- .■^';.:- .^^' '-■^^^'vi 



m^m^ 



T 
'%^. 



i i^'«^' 



''*''•. ■-'*^)jlfff'^v\ 









^■..:. 






•'^i^i:>-^>.